In Today's News

I am a progressive Roman Catholic noticing that conservatives and traditionalists Catholics take most of the Catholic space on the web. I decided to start blogging to advance "progressive" Catholic views. I can be reached by email at jcecil3@verizon.net

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

Question for Yogis

This is not a "Catholic" post. Nor is it about the news. My question is for anyone with some experience with different styles of vigorous yoga.

Back on January 2, I wrote a post about how I managed to quit smoking through prayer, exercise, diet and other healthy habits.

In that post, I mentioned that my exercise regime has become some "intense" or "vigorous" yoga.

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Thomas Massaro's article in Commonweal argues for making welfare an issue in 2008.

He specifically proposes the case for better empirical observation of the results of the 1996 welfare reform.

There are some interesting questions raised either implicitly or explicitly and almost in passing as Massaro pleads his case.

Did the welfare reform of '96 lead to an increase in teenage abortions?

Has welfare reform created a new class of working poor?

Has the stereotype of the lazy welfare mom in the 1990's been replaced with the uninsured worker, receiving a subsidy, but still struggling to put food on the table for kids she cannot spend time with, and who either cannot afford to own a home, or is about to go through foreclosure?

Thursday, February 21, 2008

The link above highlights recent school shootings and public reaction to highlight how successful the NRA has been in marginalizing the issue of gun control beyond common sense.

The article clearly expresses some strong feelings on the subject that provoked some thinking on my part about the whole meaning of a "right to bear arms".

The second amendment to the Constitution states the following:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right to the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.

It seems clear to me that there is no individual right to bear arms in the constitution. Rather, the people have a collective right to bear arms in order to form a "well regulated militia" for the purpose of the "security of a free state".

In other words, the second amendment guarantees the states the right to form a National Guard and/or a police force. It does not grant the individual the right to carry any weapon he or she wishes.

Even the majority of guns rights activists acknowledge that a person planning terrorists attacks does not have a right to a nuclear weapon - even if a citizen of the United States.

Indeed, most guns rights activists would agree that no individual has the right to own a bomb of any kind!

And let's be frank here. Anyone who thinks an individual has a God given human right to own a bomb is a lunatic.

No individual has a God given moral right at birth to own any sort of weapon whatsoever. Period.

The so-called "right to bear arms" is nothing more than a social convention - part of a social contract.

It would be far more appropriate to speak of the privilege to bear arms!

If the social contract granting the privilege to individuals to bear arms is violated, it makes perfect sense for the collective (the majority of voters) to restrict the privilege in any way the majority is made to feel safe.

I grew up in a small town in Ohio where the first day of deer hunting season was an unofficial holiday. Schools and businesses would literally shut down for the day, because nobody was going to show up anyway.

I fully understand that many people use guns responsibly for the purposes of hunting and sport. I also understand that many people feel a need to protect themselves.

We may have a God given human right to eat, but I'm not sure that translates to a God given right to hunt if food is available by other means. Indeed, we already have hunting laws.

We may have a God given human right to the pursuit of happiness, but I am not sure this translates to a God given human right to find pleasure in shooting guns for sport, any more than people have a God given human right to find pleasure in bare-fisted boxing, practicing cruelty to their pets, or snorting cocaine.

The state does have a right, duty, and obligation to moderate the pursuit of pleasure when it harms the individual or society and threatens the common good.

It seems almost self evident that if nobody owned guns, we would not need guns to protect ourselves from others with guns. And more people are shot by family members than criminals - in accidents or drunken fights, etc....

Do I favor the total elimination of guns?

I have never owned a gun and never will. When I see guns these days, I feel sort of queasy in my stomach. I would not have any heartburn if we lived in a world where guns did not exist.

At the same time, I am not sure I favor use the force of law to completely eliminate guns from society at this time.

I am willing to let the hunter have his hunting rifle.

But I am not opposed to restricting the type of guns manufactored for private use, requiring some ID or even a background check before selling the hunter a gun, and requiring ID to purchase ammunition, and putting safety locks on the rifle, and maybe banning hand-guns (which no respectable hunter uses to hunt), etc....

Bottom line is that we most probably do need more gun control than we have. Thirty-nine senseless deaths since last April makes that clear.

It seems obvious to me that any self-respecting pro-life Catholic Republican who can still vote in a primary must back Huckabee. That is the only way to ensure that a true pro-lifer runs against the inevitability of a pro-choice Democrat.

The link above is to an article written by a member of the New Life Community Church, which seems to be, based on their own statement of beliefs, a conservative evangelical Protestant community.

The article is not what I would call "scholarly" in the academic sense. Yet, it is a very good treatment of fasting from the whole of scripture.

The result is similar to what we might reach by passing though canonical criticism and then reading the text with a second naivete.

I was reading the article because we just entered Lent yesterday, and Ash Wednesday is a day of fasting for Catholics.

Indeed, fasting or some other form of "penance" are encouraged for the entire season of Lent.

At some points, the author of the linked article may sound overly critical of "monks and hermits" within the Catholic and Orthodox traditions.

At the same time, his Biblical evaluation of the perceived motives of "monks and hermits" is on target.

In other words, those motives are "wrong", whether real monks and hermits, individually or collectively, actually had such motives or not.

He also does not seem to favor a mandate from ministers for a whole community to fast, though he ironically points out Biblical examples where such things occurred.

Some readers may note that a contemporary theme of fasting often discussed in Catholic circles is absent: developing compassion with the suffering poor.

I may be mistaken, but I don't think this notion, however worthy, is found in Scripture.

That's OK. We Catholics don't buy into sola scriptura.

I am merely pointing out that, to my knowledge, the idea of fasting in order to develop a sense of compassion for the poor is probably not a Biblical idea.

Frequent readers may recall that I question whether Jesus actually approved of fasting.

We see in Mt 9:14-15 (quoted in the article) that Jesus' disciples clearly did not seem to fast during the entire length of his public ministry.

It can be argued that any and all indications that Christians would fast post-resurrection is precisely post-resurrection interpolation: perhaps inspired by the Holy Spirit - but nevertheless not rooted in explicit teachings of Jesus while he walked the earth.

Of course, Matthew does record that Jesus fasted for forty days - though no other source confirms this, and there were no eye witnesses to the event described (other than Satan).

Among other world religions, some Buddhists and Sikhs view fasting as a violation of the virtue of moderation or temperance.

There is some truth to the potential for this, and it would seem consistent with the image of Jesus portrayed in the Gospels that he may have preferred moderation in food and drink over asceticism, absolutes and extremes.

On the other hand, the final text received into the canon do take fasting by Christians for granted - as the author of the article linked above clearly demonstrates.

Regardless of whether the historical Jesus actually fasted or approved of fasting, we all know that fasting is part of the final Biblical heritage and Catholic tradition - particularly associated with the season of Lent.

Should we chose to participate in fasting from food during this Lenten season, I believe the article linked above gives some good guidelines straight from Scripture on how and why to approach this ancient discipline.

Peace and blessings to all who wander through here.
I am a practicing Roman Catholic who enjoys discussing and debating theological issues with Catholics and non-Catholics alike.
My experience in surfing the web on topics of Catholicism is that most sites lean toward the conservative side of the Church. One would get the impression that Catholic liberals or progressives do not exist.

So, I have turned to "blogging" where I can become a voice in the wilderness crying out as the loyal opposition from within Catholicism for progressive change in the Church, while defending her from outer attack from the atheists, fundamentalists and whoever else has an axe to grind.

I wanted to create a space for progressive Catholicism on the web, where fellow progressives can feel their views are heard and shared.

Let me say up front, that if I depart from the "official line" of the Vatican here, I will say so. I will try to explain why I withhold assent from a teaching and point to the Catechism or other authoritive texts where you can read the Church's official answers and judge for yourself whether my questions are valid. I make no claim of personal infallibility, and I very well can be in error. That said, I see no reason why the questions of progressive Catholics should not be given serious attention.

A little about myself: I am an ex-seminarian for Catholic priesthood and completed 72 graduate credits towards the M.Div., with a dual MA concentrating in systematic theology. I never got around to completing the comps and thesis for the MA. I was in formation in a religious order (Franciscans) for almost six years before discerning that celibacy was not my calling. I still feel the desire to serve the Church as a priest, but make absolutely no claim to be an official voice of the entire Roman Catholic Church.

Since leaving the seminary, I have married and I work in a secular corporation in a job that actually provides a service associated with one of the corporal works of mercy. I don't want to be too specific lest I violate some corporate policy. I am an operations manager. I hope to someday do work in a developing nation as a lay missionary or Peace Corps type of volunteer.

My Catholicism expresses itself in my faithfulness to marriage and through frequent Mass attendance (almost daily), frequent recitation of the Rosary, and daily recitation of Morning and Evening prayer from the Liturgy of the Hours (also known as the Divine Office). I use the Sacrament of Reconciliation about once a month on average. I am a lector and member of my parish choir. I also currently volunteer about four hours per week to teaching English as a second language in a diocesan program of ministry to non-native immigrant Americans. I have taught CCD (now called PSR in most places) and two adult education classes on the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I do not practice contraception, I am pro-life, and as a sign of compassion and an act of penance, I am a vegetarian (whom Saint Paul called weak).

I don't write any of this to boast except in the Lord, as Saint Paul does in 2 Cor 11: 22-32. Only by the grace of Jesus Christ is any good at all done in me, and I still have much sinfullness and confusion to overcome. Nevertheless, in often taking stances that seem opposed by the Vatican, many of my fellow Roman Catholics will question my right to call myself Catholic. If faith is expressed in works as much or more than what is said on the lips, my deeds demonstrate my loyalty to the Church! And may the Mother of God intercede for me if I am in grave and substantial error.

I define myself as a Roman Catholic because I have received the sacraments of initiation, continue to participate in the sacramental life of the Church.

I accept the following beliefs as my own and can explain them:
The kerygma, "Christ has died, Christ IS risen, and Christ will come again",
the Apostles' Creed,
the Nicene Creed,
the divine inspiration of Sacred Scripture,
the Holy Spirit's guidance in the transmission and development of Sacred Tradition,
the seven sacraments,
the validity of infant baptism,
the validity of baptism in the Trinitarian formula by either sprinkling or immersion,
the doctrine of transubstantiation, or real presence in the Eucharist,
the doctrine that we are saved by grace through faith expressed in works,
the doctrine of original sin - that I NEED God's grace in my life to be saved,
the doctrine of purgatory,
the doctrine that we may ask the prayers of deceased saints on our behalf,
the two great commandments to love God above all and our neighbor as our self,
the golden rule, to do unto others as you would have them do to you,
the ten commandments,
the beatitudes,
the value of human life, including the unborn,
the value of chastity and temperance (I'm actually a boring prude in some ways),
the precepts of the Church,
the theological and cardinal virtues,
the Ecumenical Councils,
the infallibility of the Pope when speaking ex cathedra,
the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception of Mary and her Assumption,
the value of the vocation of celibacy to the Church,
the idea that the fullness of truth subsist in the Catholic Church,
and the importance of family.

Yet, I believe that doctrine develops according to Dei Verbum 8, and that such development can justify beliefs considered "controversial" by many Catholics.

The more controversial beliefs I hold are as follows: I believe that God can be called Mother as well as Father, and
that inclusive language in reference to the people of God should be used in liturgy,
that women could be ordained ministerial priest, and perhaps should be ordained (The Pope has clearly said no to this one),
that married men should be ordained,
that even with original sin, we image the divine and we are inherently capable of some good,
that the ancient rite of adelphopoiesis could be restored as a union for homosexual Catholics,
that divorced and remarried Catholics can participate in the life of the Church,
that artificial contraception in marriage is morally equivalent to natural family planning,
that ecumenical dialogue is essential to contemporary Catholicism and we can learn from non-Catholics,
that social justice is part and parcel of the gospel,
that salvation is integral for the whole human person (involving liberation),
that there is room for democratic forms of Church governance,
that Catholics should be committed to conserving the environment,
that Catholics can conscientiously object to all war on principle, and
that Catholics should be opposed to the death penalty in the modern world.

- Any psychological assessment of a commenter, of any type, even if done by a trained professional, is not acceptable here on this site, because right or wrong, the host does not believe psychology is well practiced in cyberspace at this point in his life,

- I do recognize intellectual bullying tactics and do not want to see it here,

- Name calling is not acceptable,

- Meanness is unacceptable behavior,

- Anything I deem hurtful will be considered inappropriate,

- Stick to the topic of the post you are commenting upon,

- Do not dredge up ancient history with others you have encountered in the past, whether in cyberspace, or in real life, or any other venue,

- Be as nice as you possibly can muster even to a mean host who you are simply not permitted under any circumstances whatsoever to say is mean no matter what you think of him,

- Do not nitpick with anyone over things like spelling and grammar, because the host struggles with this himself and does not see correct spelling and grammar as essential to the validity of a person's point of view,

- All "on topic" points of view are welcome, even if needing more factual support,

- Do not nitpick over small and non-essential details to create red herrings,

- Opinions may be expressed in terms of "I think" or "I feel" and will be welcome without personal assault, so long as I, and I alone, do not judge you to be mean to other commenters,

- Diversity of input to the topic is encouraged, and I hope I am not scarring people away by demanding strict adherence to what I consider very commonsense politeness,

- I am a liberal. While I may tolerate some politically incorrect speech, be careful. I reserve the right to reign you in. What I percieve as blatantly or intentionally racist, sexist, or homophobic may not fly, though I'll grant a wee little latitude if I can see where you are headed, or have no reason to believe your intentions are what I, and I alone, consider unacceptable,

- State your case and don't be evasive when directly asked an opinion question,

- Saying "I don't know" or "Let me look that up and get back to you" is an intellegent choice of words that please the host and might even please God,

- I welcome different ways of knowing than the rational technique of arguing, and also like to argue and debate according to the rules I am outlining,

- Logical fallacies identified by the Greek philosophers may be pointed out, and when accurately pointed out according to my final judgment, do not call for retaliation against the person who pointed it out,

- Democrats, Republicans, Independants, Green, liberal and conservative, and all parties are welcome.

- Some criticism of other ideologies than your own by you will be tolerated by the host if you can support your position as judged by the host,

- You must accept criticism of your own ideology charitably, whether it was given charitably or not,

- I am not particularly fond of the cyber-practice known as "fisking" (line-by-line analysis of a comment in quote and response format). I'll tolerate it usually without saying anything, but be aware it may set me on edge, or encourage me to do the same, even though nobody talks that way in real life. Use it judicially,

- Do not imply anyone commenting is stupid,

- You may refer to public figures who are not commenting as stupid if you believe it true or more charitable than the alternative explanations for their behavior,

- When a public figure who is not participating in this discussion is called stupid by a commenter, no other commenter is permitted to retaliate against that commenter because it might be true that the public figure has a low IQ. Instead, you are to ask for the evidence, and if it is supplied, shut up no matter how much you like the the person lacking intelligence, accept that the public figure might be stupid, and if you do not follow this rule, I will shut you up upon my own discretion,

- If making any sort of moral critique of any sort, focus on acts instead of persons,

- Avoid judging others and be merciful to those who admit being wrong,

- Treat all other commenters with the respect due to a human person possessing the incomparable dignity revealed in the incarnation event,

- Please, do feel free to appeal to textual support if you have it for your opinions, such as Vatican documents, the Bible, statements from bishops, etc... but don't overwhelm us, even if the host does that all the time, and accept the possibility of alternate interpretations than yours,

- If you've been away from the Church for decades and can't back your opinion up with texts, do not fear - I will help you,

- Follow your mothers rule, which is "Do as I say, not as I do" when it comes to the rules of the host,

- Finally, follow the golden rule, whether you think I do or not, and do not coment on my own consistency with this rule in the way I manage my blog no matter what you think.

I reserve the right to verbally swat you hard enough to emotionally hurt you if possible if you break my rules.

I reserve the right and have the technology to delete comments or ban people or even alter comments. I seldom have had to use it.

I reserve the sole right to be mean to mean spirited commentors if I choose to be without criticism.

Mind your P's and Q's and stick to the subject of the post to avoid punitive action.

On the flip side, if you are nice to me and each other, you can express whatever "on topic" opinion you wish with any choice of words you feel is effective - including curse words and expletives and images - so long as they very clearly are not directed at any person reading this blog by my own supreme judgment which is to be considered unquestionable and off limits to discussion in the comments.

I, and I alone, reserve sole right and privilege to judge who is following my own rules of discussion.

Do not accuse me, or even another commenter of breaking the rules either implicitly or explicitly.

If you're thinking ill of someone, don't say it, and try not to let it leak into your comments.

The judgment of who is following my rules belongs to me alone because this is my blog.

If I happen to be away from my PC while discussion gets heated from one individual, do not call it out.
Wait until I get back to my PC and let me decide who is being cruel, if anyone. And I may very well be away for hours on hours at a time. Tough. Wait it out, or I'll beat you up too (and delete your comments if I feel I should).

I am the judge and jury here - I am not God - but for the purposes of this blog close enough that if you wish to participate, you better do what I say.

Please pray for me that I act as a benevolent and humble dictator guided by the merciful and loving wisdom of God, but have no fear to show the tough love needed to foster justice and the life dialogue where creativity and dicovery and community can occur.